Experimental platforms for behavioral experiments on social-ecological systems

Janssen, Marco A.; Lee, Allen; Waring, Timothy M.

doi:10.5751/es-06895-190420

Cited by 26 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 42 publications

(40 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These choices stem from our intention to mimic field conditions as closely as possible. Because we intend to bring this experimental design to the field, we used pencil and paper instead of a computer-based experiment in this application (Janssen et al 2014). For a more detailed description of the design, see Lindahl et al (2012).…”

Section: Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collective action and the risk of ecosystem regime shifts: insights from a laboratory experiment

Schill¹,

Lindahl²,

Crépin³

2015

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Ecosystems can undergo regime shifts that potentially lead to a substantial decrease in the availability of provisioning ecosystem services. Recent research suggests that the frequency and intensity of regime shifts increase with growing anthropogenic pressure, so understanding the underlying social-ecological dynamics is crucial, particularly in contexts where livelihoods depend heavily on local ecosystem services. In such settings, ecosystem services are often derived from common-pool resources. The limited capacity to predict regime shifts is a major challenge for common-pool resource management, as well as for systematic empirical analysis of individual and group behavior, because of the need for extensive preshift and postshift data. Unsurprisingly, current knowledge is mostly based on theoretical models. We examine behavioral group responses to a latent endogenously driven regime shift in a laboratory experiment. If the group exploited the common-pool resource beyond a certain threshold level, its renewal rate dropped drastically. To determine how the risk of such a latent shift affects resource management and collective action, we compared four experimental treatments in which groups were faced with a latent shift with different probability levels (0.1, 0.5, 0.9, 1.0). Our results suggest that different probability levels do not make people more or less likely to exploit the resource beyond its critical potential threshold. However, when the likelihood of the latent shift is certain or high, people appear more prone to agree initially on a common exploitation strategy, which in turn is a predictor for averting the latent shift. Moreover, risk appears to have a positive effect on collective action, but the magnitude of this effect is influenced by how risk and probabilities are communicated and perceived.

show abstract

Section: Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collective action and the risk of ecosystem regime shifts: insights from a laboratory experiment

Schill¹,

Lindahl²,

Crépin³

2015

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although some can be dubious about the capacity or usefulness of measuring resilience, an assessment process is often nurtured by the measurement of different values, such as, for instance, the quantification of ecosystem services (see Ecosystem services as a specific concept), or also uses the results of economic experiments which provide measures of human behaviors (Janssen 2014). …”

Section: The Assessment Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resilience and development: mobilizing for transformation

Bousquet¹,

Botta²,

Alinovi³

et al. 2016

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. In 2014, the Third International Conference on the resilience of social-ecological systems chose the theme "resilience and development: mobilizing for transformation." The conference aimed specifically at fostering an encounter between the experiences and thinking focused on the issue of resilience through a social and ecological system perspective, and the experiences focused on the issue of resilience through a development perspective. In this perspectives piece, we reflect on the outcomes of the meeting and document the differences and similarities between the two perspectives as discussed during the conference, and identify bridging questions designed to guide future interactions. After the conference, we read the documents (abstracts, PowerPoints) that were prepared and left in the conference database by the participants (about 600 contributions), and searched the web for associated items, such as videos, blogs, and tweets from the conference participants. All of these documents were assessed through one lens: what do they say about resilience and development? Once the perspectives were established, we examined different themes that were significantly addressed during the conference. Our analysis paves the way for new collective developments on a set of issues: (1) Who declares/assign/cares for the resilience of what, of whom? (2) What are the models of transformations and how do they combine the respective role of agency and structure? (3) What are the combinations of measurement and assessment processes? (4) At what scale should resilience be studied? Social transformations and scientific approaches are coconstructed. For the last decades, development has been conceived as a modernization process supported by scientific rationality and technical expertise. The definition of a new perspective on development goes with a negotiation on a new scientific approach. Resilience is presently at the center of this negotiation on a new science for development.

show abstract

“…Assigned values can be expressed in either monetary or nonmonetary terms, and are relevant to economic and psychology approaches. In a social-science context, assigned values have been quantitatively measured using a variety of techniques, including survey and interview approaches with the help of psychometric scales used in psychology (Bengston, 1994), social experiments in behavioral economics (Janssen et al, 2014;Yu et al, 2016) and content analysis (Seymour et al, 2010;Bark et al, 2016a;Xu and Bengston, 1997;Wei et al, 2017). …”

Section: Measurement Of Changing Norms and Valuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Norms and values in sociohydrological models

Roobavannan

Emmerik

Elshafei

et al. 2018

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Sustainable water resources management relies on understanding how societies and water systems coevolve. Many place-based sociohydrology (SH) modeling studies use proxies, such as environmental degradation, to capture key elements of the social component of system dynamics. Parameters of assumed relationships between environmental degradation and the human response to it are usually obtained through calibration. Since these relationships are not yet underpinned by social-science theories, confidence in the predictive power of such place-based sociohydrologic models remains low. The generalizability of SH models therefore requires major advances in incorporating more realistic relationships, underpinned by appropriate hydrological and social-science data and theories. The latter is a critical input, since human culture -especially values and norms arising from it -influences behavior and the consequences of behaviors. This paper reviews a key social-science theory that links cultural factors to environmental decision-making, assesses how to better incorporate social-science insights to enhance SH models, and raises important questions to be addressed in moving forward. This is done in the context of recent progress in sociohydrological studies and the gaps that remain to be filled. The paper concludes with a discussion of challenges and opportunities in terms of generalization of SH models and the use of available data to allow future prediction and model transfer to ungauged basins.

show abstract

Experimental platforms for behavioral experiments on social-ecological systems

Cited by 26 publications

References 42 publications

Collective action and the risk of ecosystem regime shifts: insights from a laboratory experiment

Collective action and the risk of ecosystem regime shifts: insights from a laboratory experiment

Resilience and development: mobilizing for transformation

Norms and values in sociohydrological models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About